Piltdown Superman

Puzzling Penguin Perplexes Evolutionists

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

The way penguins fly is amazing — if one redefines the word fly. For most folks, it is obvious: The ability to maneuver through the air. Penguins are flightless when it comes to air, but underwater, it sure does look like they are flying. Their movement in water has been studied in great detail.

When penguins are discussed, people tend to think of the Antarctic. That is not a pleasant place to conduct studies. (Some species live in Africa and the Galápagos.) Part of their attraction may be attributed to their cuteness and how humans respond to it.

Jumping penguins, National Science Foundation / Dr. Paul Ponganis (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Penguins can make deep dives and hold their breath far longer than any human. Biomimetics (or biomimicry) gets involved, studying this characteristic for human health in medicine. While believers in particles-to-penguin evolution claim that they have their development all figured out, that is the opposite of the truth. Examining all their traits and seeing that the fossil record does not support evolution, so the most logical conclusion is that they were designed by the Master Engineer for their unique lives.

When it comes to flying creatures, most people naturally think of birds that fly through the air. Of course, there are also bats, numerous insects, and at one time, flying reptiles. There is even a fish that ‘flies’ above the water. However, there is one kind of bird that is unable to fly in air, but ‘flies’ beneath the water’s surface.

Penguins consist of 18 living species across six genera in the bird family Spheniscidae.1 The largest is the Emperor Penguin (1.2 m or 4 ft high, weighing 32–40 kg, i.e. 71–88 lb). The Fairy Penguin (aka the Little Penguin) is just 33 cm (13 in) tall and weighs 1–1.2 kg (2.2–2.6 lb).
. . .

The legs of penguins are very short with their feet set farther back than other birds. As a result, they stand very upright. Their plantigrade walk—on their soles as well as their toes—is uncommon among birds. With their ‘tuxedo’ appearance and waddling gait on land, penguins can appear almost comical at times.

To read the entire article, hop on over to "The peculiar penguin". You may also like to see "Penguin Wing Evolution Story Fails."

Living in a Simulation, and the Basis of Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Saddle up and ride to the top of the hill for the big picture, useful when atheists make assertions. They often claim that they believe in reality because they deny the existence of God; they are materialists and matter is all that exists. That is their definition of reality.

Something simple that this child learned long ago is to ask pertinent questions, including, "How do you know?" Note that many of their assertions are arbitrary. They presuppose materialism, then put Christians on the defensive — if we let them.

Ashokan Reservoir, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Things like this illustrate a bigger concern: How do you know what you know? Similarly, how do you know what you believe is true? Atheists make claims that they cannot logically justify. Indeed, if matter is all there is, then logic itself cannot exist because it is not material. Neither is love, hate, joy, integrity, science, justice, and other things that people use every day. Only a theistic worldview warrants belief in immaterial things, including knowledge!

When George Barna asked Americans this question in 2020, 15% said they didn’t know. Another 15% believed the answer lay in science, while others appealed to “inner certainty” (16%), tradition (5%), social consensus (4%), or God (42%). The remaining 5% claimed truth does not exist, although how they know this claim is true remains unclear.

By asking this question, Barna was probing Americans’ epistemology. Derived from the Greek term episteme (ἐπιστήμη), meaning knowledge, epistemology is a branch of philosophy that theorizes about knowledge and belief. . . .

The divided responses to Barna’s survey question highlight our culture’s need for epistemic clarity. In response, this two-part article series introduces how a biblical worldview (rather than human reasoning) yields the best basis for justified beliefs—the most intelligible epistemological framework.

Go to "What Is Epistemology, and How Does It Point to God?" to read the full article, but be sure to come back for the startling conclusion.

Something that is brought up by atheists is the concept that nothing is real, all is imaginary, because we live in a simulation. Personal history and memories, indeed, the entire history of the universe, were programmed. The idea of the multiverse can be integrated because some teenager with a visor in another universe has made us up.

Going beyond a thought experiment, some folks are taking the concept of living in a simulation seriously. However, it fails several tests of reason and cannot warrant belief in logic. It seems a mite ironic that this atheistic idea presupposes a being that is causing the "reality" to happen. This naturally brings up the question on where the maker came from, ad infinitum. Biblical theism challenges the simulation idea, and again demonstrates that ultimate reality — ultimate truth — is found in the Creator as revealed in the Bible.

Are we living in a simulation? This question has garnered massive attention in recent years, with technology tycoon Elon Musk and podcaster Joe Rogan speculating along these lines in a YouTube clip that scored over 10 million views. Another prominent proponent for this idea is Nick Bostrom, a former Oxford professor and leading advocate for transhumanism (the belief that humans should transform their own nature through technology).

Recent research critiques these ideas, known as the “simulation hypothesis,” on mathematical grounds. Still, the debate continues. As these topics spark conversations about the universe’s origins, Christians will increasingly need to be prepared to answer the simulation hypothesis. This article, Part Two in a series on epistemology, responds by applying a biblical worldview to examine recent arguments about the simulation hypothesis.

To read the entire article and conclude this two-part series, see "Can We Know That We’re Not Living in a Simulator?"

Most Distant Galaxy — Miracle or Mirage?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

As discussed before, one purpose for the James Webb Space Telescope was to find evidence supporting the Big Bang. Scientists expected it to "look back in time" and see stars and galaxies they way they looked shortly after the Big Bang. The results are the opposite of what mainstream scientists expect.

What has been called the most distant galaxy discovered so far has shocked secularists. The MoM designation is mirage or miracle. So they admit to secular miracles while rejecting the Creator. Interesting.

MoM-z14 galaxy, DAWN JWST Archive; Image Processing - Joseph DePasquale (STScI), NIRCam

Note that these scientists are amazed at this most distant galaxy being bright and mature. That does not fit their cosmic evolution paradigm, hence the mirage or miracle wording. Biblical creationists know about true miracles, and we presuppose recent creation, so we are not surprised by this discovery. Indeed, secularists presuppose that the Big Bang is true and that the universe is quite old, so they are confounded by evidence that contradicts their belief system. Ask your MoM. Cowboy up and face the truth, folks!

A galaxy with the designation MoM-z14 has recently been confirmed as the most distant galaxy ever detected. By Big Bang reckoning, we are seeing this galaxy as it was just 280 million years after the supposed Big Bang. This shocked conventional scientists, because slow, gradual, evolutionary processes should not have been able to form such a “remarkably luminous” galaxy in such a short time.

You can read the rest over at "Confirmed New Record for Most Distant Galaxy."

Countdown to the Global Flood in Genesis?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 28 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Yesterday morning I was talking with my prospector friend Stormie Waters and her fiancé Roland Meadows, and the topic strayed from their upcoming nuptials to the Genesis Flood. God brought the animals to Noah, some other things, then we pondered Genesis 6:3.

I picked up my Bible and read, "And the LORD said, 'My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years'". It looked like a countdown to me. Roland said that the key word can also be translated "abide."

The Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark, WikiComm / Jan Brueghel the Elder, 1613

When considering the meaning of a word or phrase, it is helpful to see how it is translated in other places. Aside from Genesis being an ancient text, the Hebrew word in question is used only once in the Old Testament! Is it strive with man, or abide in man? This is not a vital point of Christian doctrine so there's no need to stand and defend a hill on this. However, it is useful to examine what is going on.

There are two main interpretations of this statement. The first is that God is setting a limit on human lifespans, and the second is that God is starting a clock that counts down the time to judgment. These can be labeled as the lifespan and countdown views, respectively. Deciding which of these is the better interpretation requires a deeper study of the text, but as we will see, both of these positions require the interpreter to make some assumptions, so we should remain somewhat tentative in our conclusions.

You can read the article in its entirety at "Longevity or Countdown: What Does the 120 Years in Genesis 6:3 Refer To?"

Creation Science and the Cause of the Ice Age

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

The formerly United States had a surprisingly bad winter in 1970s, so scientists began prognosticating that another ice age was on the way. In fact, there was no stopping it. This notion was suddenly left to chill and the scaremongers instead came up with global warming caused by humans.

Conventional geologists and astronomers presuppose millions of years and that there were many ice ages. They invoke the fundamentally-flawed Milankovitch Cycles to explain that changes in Earth's orbit caused ice ages.

Glacier sliding down a mountain, FreeImages / Ainhize Barrena

Is there evidence, Cowboy Bob?

For multiple ice ages? Not really. The evidence is assumed, and what little they have can be explained by other processes. There is a passel of evidence for the single Ice Age, though. Sheets of ice still exist in Antarctica and Greenland, mostly. There is physical evidence that ice sheets had intruded further south than they are today.

A problem with the unavoidable coming ice age "science" in the 1970s is that scientists did not dig deeply enough into the causes of an ice age. Indeed, mainstream scientists really cannot formulate a reasonable model of how one happened. Several conditions have to be met, and if one cause is proposed, it presents problems for another cause — and for the model itself.

Okay, smart guy! Can creation scientists explain the Ice Age, which you people say was only one?

Yes, yes we can. Secularists get burrs under their saddles because if they do not have a satisfactory explanation, nobody has one. Well, as they presuppose deep time, naturalism, and all that good stuff, creationists presuppose that the Bible is true and that it is historical. If there was a global Flood at the time of Noah, there should be tell-tale signs of it all over the world. Those are clearly seen. Further, there is evidence of long-term effects of the Flood. One of those is (drum roll) the Ice Age.

Secular scientists have challenged creation scientists to explain the Ice Age. Also, they claim that there were numerous ice ages, possibly up to fifty, at intervals of 100,000 or 40,000 years over the past 2.6 million years. Bible believers need to respond to this challenge by appealing to 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Examine everything carefully; hold fast that which is good” (NASB). As we maintain confidence in God’s word we need to carefully examine the observed data and be wary of how naturalism (‘there is no God’) has influenced its interpretations.

To chill out and read the rest, see "What caused the Ice Age?" Also of interest is "The unique post-Flood Ice Age."

AI and Human Value

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

People try to find value (or validation) in many places, something to make them feel...complete. It is natural to wonder what standard is used to give a person value. Comparing ourselves to other people is common, but it gets discouraging because there is always someone better at something.

Computers and robots are better at many things than humans, but those are designed for specific purposes. Artificial intelligence is highly advanced software. It often mimics human thinking, and some folks think it can surpass humanity.

Bionic eye, Pixabay / intographics

A person is unlikely to feel inferior to a robot or computer because a comparison is unreasonable — and they do not look like us. AI is being implemented into human images, and perhaps some people are intimidated by something that seems human but is superior as well. Is the worth of a person based on performance or the expectations of what he or she can contribute to society?

My wife worked for an agency that supported mentally disabled adults, and many of them were physically disabled as well. From an atheistic utilitarian perspective, why are they being cared for and not eliminated by the state? There are still vestiges of Christian morality in Western society, which means we help the helpless and defenseless. Also, hate Walmart if you wish, but people who work there are like the rest of us, having imperfections and deformities.

As Christians, we do not get our value from molecules-to-manager evolution. That leads to despair. Instead, we are created in the image of God. He gives us value. No need to be intimidated by human-looking AI machines (which are subject to the biases and worldviews of their programmers), nor by utilitarian views.

Some of us grew up in environments where performance determined our worth. If someone else was smarter, faster, or more accomplished, we felt like we were worth less. When we failed, others made us feel worthless. That same perspective feeds into our anxieties about artificial intelligence. We ask: if AI systems eventually become more intelligent and more capable than humans, does humanity become less valuable? Would God love us less?

I understand the fear. But that fear is misplaced. Human value is not determined by what we do — it is rooted in who we are.

You can read the rest or listen to the audio by visiting "Why AI Won’t Replace Us Spiritually."

Monkeying Around with Evolution and Time

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 13:31:00 +0000

For Darwin's disciples, time is a hero in their evolution stories. It has been pointed out before that evolution requires millions or billions of years to happen. Cosmologists, geologists, and others strive to "find" those years — which are constantly assumed anyway.

Consider that geologists tenaciously cling to slow and gradual uniformitarianism, reluctantly admitting rapid processes occur when they are in a corner. Also, the myth that humans and chimpanzee DNA is 98%–99% similar was debunked, but pertinent information was obscured in footnotes because the timeline was too small.

Sulawesi crested macaque, Wikimedia Commons / R.Rahasia (CC BY-SA 4.0), modified at PhotoFunia

Obscuring the data, denying the evidence, and even lying outright are not science, old son. Those are tactics to protect the narrative. People are desperate to deny the fact that life was created, and created recently.

An old attempt to make evolution plausible (which presupposes deep time) is the idea that monkeys can type out Shakespeare. There are variations in this with some or even all of his works happening given enough time. That is an invalid comparison, and not all evolutionists went along with it anyway. Some researchers decided to give the idea a test. It did not go well.

. . . when Plymouth University (UK) researchers installed a keyboard and computer screen in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques, it didn’t result in a nicely typed set of the complete works of Shakespeare. Neither did they get a sonnet. Nor even a single word of Shakespeare.

The entirety of this short, amusing, and interesting article is located at "Monkey madness."

South Dakota Badlands Good for Creation Science

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 15:00:00 +0000

The word badlands is often used to mean that an area is not good for living in, growing crops, and so forth. South Dakota has badlands. The Badlands National Park takes up the area of three counties. Also in the badlands area is a National Historic Site involving deactivated nuclear missile silos. Nuclear missiles make good days go bad.

So why make a national park? A passel of wildlife call the area home. It also has geologic formations, and the study and removal of fossils needed to be regulated.

Badlands National Park, Unsplash / Wesley Sharp

Geologists and paleontologists who presuppose millions of years interpret what they observe into an interesting story. It does not hold up. Biblical creationists also has presuppositions, the main ones being that the Bible is true about recent creation and the devastating global Flood. Using Flood geology and models, the formations are explained in a way that makes sense.

The eroded cliffs of the Badlands terrain of west central South Dakota with their variously colored layers are beautiful and desolate, fascinating yet formidable (Fig. 1). Early settlers avoided this land because it was poor for farming and was a barrier to travel.

Yet from the walls of the canyons and cliffs of this hostile terrain and from along stream banks have come the strange bones of probably the richest storehouse of vertebrate fossils in all of North America. It provides much of what we know about North America’s “Golden Age of Mammals” in the so-called Oligocene Epoch, supposedly 23–34 million years ago.

To read the rest, rock on over to "The Origin of the Badlands, South Dakota."

Pterosaur at the Salad Bar?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Some biblical creationists do not cotton to the expression "YEC," as young earth creationist implies that a young earth is the starting point. Rather, we believe that the earth is young because the Bible clearly indicates recent creation; it is true from the very first verse.

It may come as a shock to some people, but when reading the creation account, Genesis 1:30 says that everything was vegetarian! If something has nasty sharp big pointy teeth, that does not guarantee it is carnivorous. Many are, of course.

Pterosaur eating leaves, made at Bing image generator using DALLE-3

Aside from the spaghetti-loving lioness and other modern exceptions to the "pointy teeth means carnivore" assumption, take a look at the pterosaur that was eating greens. Advanced technology used on a pterosaur fossil showed that it did just that. There were two strong indicators that this was not just an exception or that it scarfed down some green garnish along with meat. What has been discovered is evidence for the biblical creationist position on animals eating plants at the beginning.

The fascinating flying reptiles called pterosaurs are in the news again. In a not-so-surprising development, paleontologists have discovered a pterosaur fossil that was found to have small stones (used in the gizzard to grind food) and plant microfossils at the stomach mass. This indicates the pterosaur ate vegetation, lending credibility to the creation model. According to evolutionist Eric Ralls, “The research [of Jiang et al.] provides direct evidence that at least one pterosaur species ate plants.”

For the rest of the article, visit "Pterosaur Herbivory."

Insect Celestial Navigation by Design

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

The other day, I went to visit Hammond Suisse at his spread and helped with some odds and ends. Day became night. We were taking a break, looking up at the stars. That always stirs me on the inside. Canada geese were honking and flying in formation, darker areas against the night.

"Do they use the stars to know where they're going?" he asked.

I replied, "Sure do. The Creator gave us the sun, moon, and stars for lots of things including navigation," I replied. "We're not the only ones to take advantage of them."

Male bogong moth (Agrotis infusa), Wikimedia Commons / Birgit E. Rhode (CC BY 4.0)

Down 'Straya way, researchers performed some interesting science on bogong moths. Some of these critters migrate 1,000 km (621 miles) at night. Testing revealed that they navigate by the stars. Since the world turns, so they had to adjust for that as well. It is not a learned or taught behavior, as they do not live long enough to pass along the information to their offspring. Several factors are involved, demonstrating the work of the Master Designer; evolution need not apply.

It has been known for some time that some birds migrating long distances can use the stars to navigate. This is a form of celestial navigation. One type of celestial navigation is to use the star Polaris (the so-called north star) to indicate north. As recently as 2023 a summary of research on animal navigation by Roswitha and Wolfgang Wiltschko indicated that, “So far, a star compass has been demonstrated only in a few species of songbirds that migrate at night.” However, a recent study by a consortium of researchers appears to confirm that a species of moth also exhibits a form of celestial navigation using the stars.

To read the rest of this interesting article, fly over to "Animal Algorithms: Moth Celestial Navigation."

Creation Science — Attack and Defense Structures

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 14:14:00 +0000

Biblical creation science is usually rejected out of hand by misotheists and other believers in dust-to-dispatcher evolution, but they seldom examine whether or not it is internally consistent. Our view covers a great deal of ground because it involves theology as well as science.

Creationists maintain that God created everything very good and creatures were vegetarian in the beginning. What we see now is carnivory, attack and defensive mechanisms (some of which are very impressive), and parasitism. Something must have drastically changed between creation and today.

Specifically, a Pacific rattlesnake, USFWS / Miguel Jimenez (PD)

The origin of those things admittedly involves speculation, and we have to be consistent with both the Bible and science. (Darwin's disciples evosplain with speculation and arbitrary assertions, then pretend they are offering scientific conclusions.) Creatures need to eat, others do not want to be eaten. It is reasonable that (among other factors), the Master Engineer frontloaded genetic information in critters to switch on after the Fall of Man. Some of these seem to have had other uses before the Fall, and are occasionally seen today.

In the beginning, God made everything very good. That means the world was perfect. There was no sin, no death, no suffering, and no disease. The animals were all vegetarian. Yet the world is no longer that way. We see all manner of disease, parasitism, and carnivory. Some of these examples are both brutal and repulsive. Why do we have a world like this? What changed, and how did it come to this?

To read the rest and see several examples, click on "How Did Animals Develop Defense and Attack Structures?"

Hybrid Jaybirds and the Genesis Kinds

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 14 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

My wife was a lover of blue jays in our area, and talked to them like they were pets. I told her about their cousins the scrub jays that live out west. Very recently, I learned about green jays which live in southwest North America. Thrill jaybirds by giving them peanuts (in the shell) and hazelnuts.

Although the ranges of blue and green jays are separate, a couple got romantic and a hybrid of the blue and green jay was born in Texas. Not just different species, but up one level as different genera.

Blue (a), hybrid (b), green (c) jays, WikiComm / B.R. Stokes and T.H. Keitt (CC BY 4.0)

Jaybirds are intelligent, along with other corvids like crows, ravens, magpies, and the like.

The fact that this hybridization happened brings up the concept of the biblical created kinds. Some folks believe that kind is another word for species, but that is not the case. (Conventional scientists often disagree on definitions of species.) Biblical kinds are similar to the family level in biological classification. Interestingly, this hybridization has implications for young-earth creation and against evolution!

Scientists were surprised when a homeowner reported an unusual type of jaybird. The bird was found to be a hybrid. Hybridization occurs when two separate species interbreed. In this case, the hybrid was a cross between a female Green Jay (Cyanocorax yncas, aka Inca jay) and a male Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). These two jays are not just separate ‘species’, but different genera (singular: genus).

The mating had clearly occurred in the wild; the territories of both species were known to have been expanding for some time, eventually overlapping. Previously, they rarely if ever came into contact.

You can read the rest by taking flight over to "Blue Jay × Green Jay hybrid."

Yosemite National Park and the Genesis Flood

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

If you ride toward the left coast of the formerly United States, go through Nevada, then comes California. Yosemite National Park has its eastern boundary bumping up against the Nevada border. Yosemite has Sam, wildlife, mountains, waterfalls, and all that good stuff. Lots of wilderness in its 1,200 square miles.

There are many aspects of geology to be studied at Yosemite. Although conventional scientists are mostly locked into deep time and uniformitarianism, there are clues that the granite mountains were formed rapidly. They also display signs of the Ice Age.

Yosemite National Park valley, Unsplash / Mick Haupt

Worldviews are important. Secular scientists view evidence and try to interpret data through their deep time evolutionary glasses. Biblical creationists believe the Bible is true and it teaches recent creation and the Genesis Flood, so we reject deep time interpretations. If conventional scientists would cowboy up and look at the data without evolutionary presuppositions, they would likely see that the evidence supports a young earth.

Yosemite National Park in California is a sure source of stunning scenery. It’s no wonder that American naturalist John Muir persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to preserve Yosemite Valley. But how and when did this park’s dramatic peaks rise? Two clues in particular should clarify the origins of Yosemite’s mountain granites.

The rest of this first article is found at "Yosemite National Park, Part 1: Tiny Clues of a Grand Picture." Be sure to come back for the second part!

Creationists and secularists agree that there was an Ice Age. Then the disagreements begin. The shape of the valleys at Yosemite show that glaciers moved there. There are cliffs and waterfalls, but the glacial ice is gone. Also, there are boulders were moved by the ice. Uniformitarian beliefs (slow and gradual processes; the present is the key to the past) are unable to show how the Ice Age began, nor can they show how it ended. Genesis Flood models in creation science show how both of those things happened.

To learn about these two Genesis history-confirming features, look at "Yosemite National Park, Part 2: Glaciers, Seeds, and Biblical History."

Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Rescuing Device

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Have you ever heard of parallel dimensions, also called the multiverse? The concept is quite ancient. My first introductions to it was a young adult book The Forgotten Door. In it, a boy fell through a hole in his world and ended up in ours — similar, but with noticeable differences.

There are various concepts of the multiverse. A common version is that our universe resides in a bubble, and other universes are in their own bubbles in a much larger universe. Since things appear finely tuned, we are the results of dumb luck.

Multiverse, geralt (Gerd Altmann) / Pixabay

The fine-tuning argument for the design of the universe is frequently used by biblical creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. A couple of atheists on a podcast rejected it, saying that there is no scientific evidence (they must not look around much). Instead, the fact-free fantasy of the multiverse, a rescuing device for the Big Bang and atheism in general, passes for science to them. This is another example of the truth of Romans 1:18-19.

With the multiverse hypothesis, a key supposition is that the physical parameters within alternative universes somehow vary over an undefined range, with the acknowledgement that most variants turn out badly for life. Our existence is therefore “explained” in that we landed in a “lucky” space, tautologically required for us to be alive, let alone to engage in philosophical debates.

How could anyone not be convinced by such a dismissal of the fine-tuning argument? As Carroll concludes, with his glib assessment of fine-tuning, “It’s a terrible argument.”

To read or listen to the entire article, zip over to "Why a Multiverse Doesn’t Refute Fine-Tuning."

Properly Using Artificial Intelligence

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 07 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Love it, fear it, hate it, artificial intelligence is common nowadays. Customer service is often turned over to AI, but people do not like it. They want to talk to a human. Indeed, the online typed "chat" with AI has seldom resolved my issues and I usually needed to talk to a real person. We use AI with internet searches. The military is programming missiles with it.

It seems ironic that many people dislike artificial intelligence, but it is designed to think like humans — or superior to us. Many times it fails.

Charles Darwin playing chess with a life-sized silver robot, made at Bing AI image creator, then modified

The AI graphics program refused to give me the picture that I desired, so I had to settle for Charlie Darwin playing chess with a robot. People are rapidly getting irritated at short videos that are on social(ist) media because so many are fake. (I don't mind comedy AI that is not trying to deceive people.) Deep fakes are a real threat used to deceive and scam people.

What some people do not realize is that AI is subject to its programming which includes the biases of programmers. Atheists may envision using artificial intelligence to take humanity to the next stage of evolution (defying the Creator). A utopia imagined by some could also be a dystopia for others. There are many people who are wary of AI, wanting it to be closely monitored and regulated. There are many possible uses for it as a tool to make life better, but our ultimate hope is found in our Creator, not what we create.

Some have called artificial intelligence (AI) humanity’s “biggest existential threat.” Others say it could let humans achieve “a more utopian existence” built upon a “Marxist vision.” Still others point to it as a reason for pursuing “a transformative vision . . . for a new society.” Whatever the outcome, AI is shaping up to drastically impact humanity’s future. Where did AI come from, where could it be heading, and how should Christians think in response? To answer, the following discussion examines past, present, and prospective applications of AI, identifies theological principles for thinking about AI, and applies these principles to consider AI’s bioethical implications for human futures.

This is the beginning of a rather long but very interesting article that was presented in two parts. To read it all, visit "AI: Useful Tool or Existential Threat?" followed by "The Effects of Artificial Intelligence." Also of interest is "Programmed Biases and Artificial Intelligence."

Islam and Science Claims

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

When pointing out that science needs the proper environment to thrive, atheists may reply that the true founders of modern science were not the Christians and creationists in history, but Islamists. It is true that some science was developed in Persia and other places in the East, but there is more to the story.

It is interesting that when Muslims conquered lands, they brought laws and structure. That would provide some basis for science (and culture) to grow. Indeed, the glimmers of science that were found in those areas were actually from other lands and from non-Muslims.

Iran image prayer rug, Pixabay / Rudolf Langer

Islam is not exactly tolerant of ideas that came from "infidels" or from outside the Koran. (Ironically, there are many scientific errors in Islam, including that a man's seed forms in his chest.) However, Christianity provides the right environment for science to build and thrive — despite the efforts of atheists and evolutionists to pretend otherwise. Some scientific ideas may have originated in the East, but biblical presuppositions and ethics led founders of science to improve on them.

The claim is made that modern science actually was birthed in Islam dominated cultures in a paper found here: [link deleted in accordance with our feedback rules]

I have read and appreciated the work of Terry Mortenson and Nancy Pearcey on the origin of modern science. They would both reject the notion that the scientific method was known and practiced in some form centuries earlier in an Islamic dominated culture.

Would you please have someone read and respond to the paper I have cited? If the author is wrong, let’s expose his fallacy. If he is right, then Mortenson and Pearcey should be informed.

Thanks Guys. Keep up the good work.

To read Andrew Lamb's very interesting response and also on the origin of the seven-day week, click on "Christianity, Islam and science: Was modern science birthed by Islam?"

Marine Invertebrate Animals Designed to Disperse

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The number of marine invertebrate animals is rather startling, and they are found in oceans all over the earth. A key to their dispersion is their larval forms. Like many other living things, the youngest stages are markedly different from their adult forms.

Most of the larvae are microscopic and can live in various conditions. This gives them the ability to travel great distances, often putting full development on hold until the right time. Biblical creationists note that these invertebrates were as diverse before the Genesis Flood as they are today.

Rock-boring urchin, National Park Service (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Many times, creationists describe the way organisms adapt, grow, and other things to show that they are the products of design, not Darwinism. With marine invertebrate animals, another factor indicates the work of the Master Engineer: ocean currents. The critters are carried through the paths of the sea to all sorts of locations.

Marine invertebrate animals (jellyfish, crabs, snails, etc.) thrive within our global ocean, the largest habitable space on Earth. Their adult forms are commonly found on or within seafloor (benthic) habitats worldwide, from intertidal zones to the deepest plains and trenches that have been explored. It is estimated that these creatures account for more than 92% of marine animal diversity across all major ocean basins. The discovery of such a broad variety and distribution is no mystery: “God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas’” (Genesis 1:22a). In fact, there is ample evidence that many of the adult marine invertebrate forms originally created are still thriving within the world’s ocean today, having endured the Genesis Flood.

The rest of the article is found at "Designed to Fill the Waters."

Of Elephant Trunks and Robot Arms

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The trunk of an elephant looks awkward, but it is a vital tool for the critter's life. When it trumpets by forcing air through the trunk, it is a form of communication as well as expressing emotion. It can be heard for a great distance.

As all y'all know, biomimicry is taking a concept seen in nature and adapting it for human purposes. This was applied when imitating an elephant trunk to design a robotic arm. Interesting how secularists admire things they design, but trunks came from evolution and chance, not the Master Engineer. But I digress.

Elephants using their trunks, Unsplash / Wietse Jongsma

Those trunks can be used for snorkeling (yes, really), visual communication, and other things. What robotics people wanted to study was the ability to grasp and the flexibility. They had to develop a special nonmetallic material and precise controls because the 40,000 muscles the elephant uses are beyond their ken.

Conventional robotic arms with their metal skeletal bars and lots of tubes are very cleverly designed, but it’s not advisable to get too close. As engineers have wryly noted, “Compliance is not a feature of traditional robotic assistants. This presents danger of injury and/or performance error.”

So, wanting to come up with a new design of robotic arm that would be safer to operate around people, engineers turned for inspiration to the elephant’s trunk. They were attracted by the fact that its trunk provides the elephant with “an appendage that is flexible, capable of transmitting large forces, precise, delicate and highly compliant.”

To read the rest, head on over to "How did the elephant get its trunk?"

C.S. Lewis Rejected Eugenics

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Many Christians, especially those with more intellectual interests, are fond of C.S. Lewis. Also known as Jack, Lewis is popularly known for The Chronicles of Narnia written in the 1950s. Several of those books had Christian allegories.

Lewis wrote many times warning the world about Scientism, a de facto religion where science is salvation for humanity. He also opposed evolution despite how some people claim he as a theistic evolutionist. Not as widely known is his resistance to eugenics.

Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He took Charlie's Victorian evolution fantasy further by developing eugenics. The word means well born or good genes, and is a natural extension of evolution; the best people should survive and reproduce, the inferior people should be forbidden from reproducing, including through forced sterilization. Abortion is a big part of eugenics — which should come as no surprise. America imported the English philosophy enthusiastically, and it had popularity in the 1920s. A few years later, Germany tried to help evolution along...

We are our own creators and saviors according to these things, no need for God. C.S. Lewis should not be looked to as a source of sound theology, but the alarms he sounded about eugenics, Scientism, and evolution are theologically and morally sound.

C. S. Lewis is often an unrecognized voice in opposing eugenics. Often studied solely for his critique of scientism, the accompanying philosophy and practice of eugenics also greatly shaped his writings, from apologetics to fiction. With the understanding that eugenics involves the intentional “improvement” of the human race, three historical observations from the early 1900s give some background to this practice. First, the thought of the Western world as a whole leaned strongly in favor of the implementation of eugenics. Second, the landmark decision of Buck v. Bell in America allowed for the enforced sterilization of those deemed mentally unfit. Lastly, the Nazi regime went even further by carrying out an aggressive eugenics program on a racial level. With this understanding of what eugenics means in theory and practice, Lewis’ philosophical, ethical, and theological arguments against it lay an important groundwork for both refuting the philosophy of eugenics as well as applying a Christian worldview to practices today: gene editing and abortion. Both practices carry similarities to eugenics and warrant critical inspection from Christians. As such, though studied by few scholars in light of his objections to eugenics, Lewis is an invaluable source when considering science today.

To continue reading, see "C. S. Lewis’ Critique of Eugenics."

Question Evolution Day and Marketing Darwin

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Probably everyone that watches television has seen advertisements for food, but the product purchased is disappointingly different. Marketing people have techniques to make stuff look good, and they put a great deal of time and effort into creating an image that is far different from reality.

Charles Darwin had a mediocre theology degree but nothing in science. He did not make a great discovery about evolution and then tell the world. Instead, he presupposed evolutionary ideas (which dated back to ancient Hindus and Greek philosophers). Then he popularized them for his era.

Marketing Darwinism, made at NightCafe AI

Like the food people, Charlie knew his audience and what would be accepted. He also made friends of influential people. One was Thomas Henry Huxley, who promoted Darwinism. T.H.'s grandson Julian also championed his ideas (see "Darwin Succeeded through Huxley Conspiracies"). Further, Darwin labeled his material as science and not what it really was.

There have been mainstream scientists from Charlie's time through today who doubted his material. For the most part, they are suppressed or at least go unpublicized. He made promises for evidence that were never kept, and some scientists are well aware of that fact.

One reason for Question Evolution Day is to ask questions while requiring logic. Where is the evidence? Don't let the secular science industry befuddle you with guesses and speculation passed off as evidence. Biblical creationists, like secularists, have presuppositions. Ours involve the truth of God's Word, and the evidence supports creation, not evolution. Let's keep the pressure on!

A common impression is that, in contrast to mere belief, in science facts rigidly rule. Many also assume that science wins or loses in the marketplace of ideas based on empirical evidence alone.

The phrase “science has proven” convinces most people to accept an idea —a dynamic especially persuasive when coupled with the belief that evolution is rational, untouched by personal bias or performance.

It is in your best interest to read the rest at "How Darwin Marketed Evolution." You'll thank me later.

The Design of Humpback Whales

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

One aspect of science that could be considered to be fun, aside from all the hard work, is the thrill of learning new things — except when discoveries ruin evolution for the secular science industry. Whales have long been subjects of study, and new information about humpback whales has been found.

The story goes that life came from non-life, things evolved in the sea, human ancestors are fish. Some critters flopped onto land and evolved to live there, but something like a bear decided life in the sea was better. That is where whales came from.

Humpback whale breaching, iimage credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

The characteristics of whales show that the story of their evolution is laughable, instead showing that they were designed by the Master Engineer. For that matter, the songs of humpback whales possibly contain sophisticated language! Recent research indicates their songs may be supplemented by those slaps on the water to help communicate. Humpbacks are social animals, wanting to show off for tour boats. By the way, each has markings that are unique which helps scientists tell them apart.

Picture humpback whales from above or below the ocean surface, heaving their massive bulk into the air, coming down with a mighty splash. Even more wondrous, though, is the design of these mammals that are perfectly adapted to full-time aquatic life, though they breathe air, lactate, and give birth to live young like other mammals.

You can read the rest or listen to the audio by slapping the link to "We Are Still Learning About the Wonderful Design of Humpback Whales."

The Ark, the Animals, and the Water

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

As people who have read or viewed creation science material know, the Genesis Flood is extremely important. One reason is that the Flood ruins uniformitarian (old Earth) geology. Scoffers dismiss it out of hand without learning even the basics of what is involved.

Creationists have pointed out that there are questions raised in bad faith to trip up biblical creationists, but there are also people who sincerely want explanations. Today we examine two. The first is how Noah rounded up all those critters.

The Animals Entering Noah's Ark, Jacopo Bassano ca. 1570

Noah saddled up a Compsognathus, put a cart behind it, made a lariat, and lassoed —

"Don't be facetious, Cowboy Bob!"

Actually, scoffers paint a similarly absurd picture through their prejudicial conjectures. When intelligently debating opponents, it is necessary to learn their views and look for inconsistencies and logic flaws. Genesis 6:20, 7:8-9 tells us that the animals came to Noah at the Ark; they were guided by the Creator. Another factor to consider is that the climate and geography were very different then.

Critics of the Bible often ask how animals from around the world could have reached Noah’s ark. How could creatures like the slow-moving sloth, the flightless ostrich, or the giant tortoise have traveled such vast distances or across large bodies of water? These questions are based on mistaken assumptions and/or ignorance about the biblical account.

To finish reading our first installment, ride over to "How Did Animals Get TO the Ark?" Be sure to come back for the next part.

AI-generated Noah's Ark image, Pixabay / dlsdkcgl

The next point of contention is where all the water went after the Flood. In "Oxygen Level, Altitude, and the Ark," we looked at a basic science question of how the Ark passengers could breathe when it was taken up by the waters above the highest mountain. Again it is important to realize that the earth was laid out quite differently before the Flood.

If the globe was smoothed out, the water would cover it to a depth of just under two miles. That is easily found in an internet search, but Flood geologists need more. The Bible tells us that valleys sank and mountains rose. That happened during the Flood and for a while afterward, and it is called differential vertical tectonics. Ever notice mountains with flat tops? Those planation surfaces are the result of water running off the land as it rose. Indeed, mountains are known to have been under water, as marine fossils are at the tops, including Mt. Everest!

Actually, the Bible tells us where the water went. By Day 150 of the Flood catastrophe the floodwaters had risen until they covered “all the high mountains under the whole heaven” (Genesis 7:19). After that “the waters receded from the earth continually” (Genesis 8:3), a process that took about seven months.

As the water receded from the continents it must have flowed into the oceans. It only takes a quick look at a globe of the earth to appreciate that the water indeed sits in the oceans.

You can read all of this article if you surf to "How did the waters of Noah’s Flood drain off the continents?"

SETI, Signals, and Intelligent Design

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Many years ago, I believed that UFOs were vessels for extraterrestrials. I read in a special-interest magazine remarks from an investigator who said they wanted to rule out natural phenomena before declaring something was a UFO. Similarly, many ghost investigators take that approach.

Belief in such things aside, I commend them for not jumping at every chance to declare something is paranormal. An astrophysicist recommends that SETI folks pull on the reins and holler, "Whoa!" when they detect signals. After all, it may be another breakroom microwave oven.

Parkes Radio Telescope, Flickr / Amanda Slater (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Interesting that the secular science industry believes in unguided chance-driven evolution, denying the much more logical conclusions of intelligent design by the Creator. Biblical creationists believe God is the First Cause of life, the universe, and everything, but creationist scientists want to know how he created; what makes things tick. Similarly, Intelligent Design theory does not rush to judgment and say that design is involved until false design inferences have been dismissed.

Paul Sutter, an astrophysicist at Ohio State, writes occasional articles for lay people. He offers a challenge to his readers, to keep them from falling for media hysteria about space aliens. His reasoning poses an indirect challenge to any kind of explanation positing a hidden designer.

To read or listen to this article, click on "When Should Mysterious Signals from Space Be Attributed to Alien Intelligence?"

Dinosaur Ridge Testifies of the Genesis Flood

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Sat, 07 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Out Colorado way, if you mount up and ride west of Denver and a bit north of Morrison, you can find Dinosaur Ridge. It is a part of the National Natural Landmarks program administered by the US National Park Service. National parks and monuments are owned by the government, but not NNLs.

Main tracksite on Dinosaur Ridge, National Park Service (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

It is famous for exposed sediments revealing dinosaur trackways. These are the top part of the Dinosaur Freeway, which extends southward hundreds of miles. Mainstream scientists attribute the geologic activity to rivers and beaches.

Take a walk on the beach. Pay attention to the tracks your feet leave in the wet sand. Notice that the waves come in and erase the tracks. It requires special conditions to fossilize tracks, and the geology of Dinosaur Ridge and the formations involved do not support mainstream uniformitarian ideas. Instead, there are numerous facts that point to creation science Genesis Flood models.

Dinosaur Ridge exposes sedimentary units from what uniformitarian geologists call the Cretaceous and Jurassic Systems. Both rock systems are part of the dinosaur fossil-bearing strata found across the globe. ICR geologists place them in the upper part of the Zuni Megasequence. This set of rock layers reflects the time during the Flood year when the water was approaching its highest level.

The lower strata (Jurassic) are part of the famous Morrison Formation. This unit was named for the nearby town of Morrison, CO. In 1877, Arthur Lakes and Henry Beckwith found the very first dinosaur bones within the Morrison exposures on the west side of the ridge. These bones represented Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus, and Diplodocus specimens.

You can read it all at "Dinosaur Ridge: Last Stand of the Dinosaurs."

Absence of Human Fossils from the Genesis Flood

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Sorensen) — Fri, 06 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Sometimes misotheists ask questions of biblical creationists in bad faith, but some Christians may sit back, watching and waiting for an answer. Sometimes people just want to know. One of these is: Where are human fossils from the global Genesis Flood?

Interesting that Darwin's disciples challenge creationists, but they act like deep time and evolution are settled. The Flood left many obvious evidences, including fossils and geologic sequences that span continents, but since there are no known human fossils, creationists need to explain why not.

Puzzled chimpanzee is puzzled, Pixabay (AI) / olenchic

While it is reasonable to ask creationists to back up our claims with physical evidence, it's a mite disingenuous to ignore problems in evolution. Also, secularists need to be consistent. The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine organisms. Several expected types of creatures for the evolution story are poorly represented in the fossil record. Also, evolutionists have problems with finding organisms to support their views. The Genesis Flood, when examined without Darwin spectacles and atheistic presuppositions, makes sense.

These are, of course, fair questions that are commonly asked. Because of our understanding of the Flood from the Scriptures, we might expect to find human fossils in Flood strata, so it is rather surprising, at first glance, that we don’t find any. However, Scripture (backed up by so much other evidence) is very clear that there was a global Flood and the pre-Flood people were destroyed, so there must obviously be an explanation for this lack of human fossils. Consequently, we are going to attempt an explanation by exploring possible processes during the Flood and logical deductions from present observations that could help us understand why there are no undisputed human fossils found in Flood strata.

To read the entire article, see "Where are all the human fossils?" To be blunt, the last point is theological and did not strike me as very powerful. See what you think.